Not a Canadian political year end list here! As I was finally getting around to renewing my New Yorker subscription yesterday, on the site I came across this article: "The making of Winston Churchill." It was from the August 30th issue and having read it at that time, I was surprised - and happy - to see that apparently it is one of the most popular articles from the year, as the sidebar rankings show.

The article was timed as a 70 year commemoration of Churchill's infamous World War II speeches from 1940. It deconstructs them and really, celebrates them for the powerful words that they were at that perilous moment ("...to wage war against a monstrous tyranny never surpassed in the dark and lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy.") The article also goes into Churchill's "telepathic sense of Hitler," his sense that a "rhetorical fist" in the dictator's face would evoke rage and perhaps provoke error, as it did.

I recommend the whole thing but here is the conclusion, to give a sense of it:

Churchill’s real legacy lies elsewhere. He is, with de Gaulle, the greatest instance in modern times of the romantic-conservative temperament in power. The curious thing is that this temperament can at moments be more practical than its liberal opposite, or than its pragmatic-conservative twin, since it rightly concedes the primacy of ideas and passions, rather than interests and practicalities, in men’s minds. Churchill was a student of history, but one whose reading allowed him to grasp when a new thing in history happened.

What is most impressive about his legacy, perhaps, is that he is one of the rare charismatic moderns who seem to have never toyed with extra-parliamentary movements or anti-liberal ideals. During all the years, and despite all the difficulties—in decades when the idea of Parliament as a fraud and a folly, a slow-footed relic of a dying age, was a standard faith of intellectuals on left and right alike—he remained a creature of rules and traditions who happily kissed the Queen’s hand and accepted the people’s verdict without complaint. Throughout the war, as Hitler retreated into his many bunkers and Stalin stormed and even Roosevelt concentrated power more and more in his single hand, Churchill accepted votes of confidence, endured fatuous parliamentary criticism, and meekly left office after triumphing in the most improbable of victories. A romantic visionary in constitutional spectacles can often see things as they are.

Confidence votes during World War II...say it isn't so! No fragile economic recoveries would have bothered that parliament!

So there you go. A very popular read of the year for many. Fascinated by the language, the leadership and what we may not see again in this modern era of the 24/7 news cycle.

Plans are in the works for a new backup site to house the Prime Minister’s Office and his large team of political staff and bureaucrats in the event of a terrorist attack or other emergency.

Having a backup command centre for the Prime Minister is not a new concept, but government reports and memos obtained through Access to Information provide a rare window as to how the government might run in the event of a major emergency and what would be needed.

Not a new concept, hey? Well it is if a bunch of money has to be spent on it and nobody knows anything about those little monetary details, which sound quite big actually, unless reporters start asking questions. The Globe is right about the window into "how the government might be run" and "what would be needed" being of interest though.

How the government might be run...well, by the Prime Minister it appears. No mention whatsoever of Parliament or how it would operate in the event of said assorted catastrophes. Surely there must be plans for parliamentary operation of some kind, just not mentioned here. At least, there should be. Maybe the PMO/PCO could pencil that one in somewhere if they have time amidst all the secret bunker plans.

What would be needed? Well, taping facilities, of course: "The alternate site would include a communications centre and an ability for the Prime Minister to deliver live broadcasts and videotaping." And that "essential service" of "secret printing." Yes, that sounds essential for any bunker.

It's all just a draft says a Prime Ministerial spokesman, not to worry our pretty little heads over costs and secret plans. Between this and that new Taj Mahal for the DND spy agency, maybe we should start.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean everyone's not out to get you, you know. A maxim for Harper's Canada.

P.S. That Diefenbunker might be an idea if the Globe would just ixnay on the ocation-lay.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Now several of the banks are taking advantage of their solid balance sheets as well as the current revamping and consolidation of the American banking system to again look south for expansion. Last week, the Toronto-Dominion Bank agreed to pay $6.3 billion for Chrysler Financial. And earlier this month the Bank of Montreal bought Marshall & Ilsley, a bank based in Milwaukee, for $4.1 billion.

...

...Canadian banks have few other options for expansion.

“The banks simply have no choice,” said Louis Gagnon, an associate professor of finance at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario. “They have to go beyond our borders to grow and the only market that makes sense is the United States.”

...

While that has made for a orderly financial system for Canada that is very profitable for bank investors, the banks now find themselves accumulating substantial capital without effective ways to use it to increase their businesses within Canada.

Seems to me that some enterprising minds of the economic variety might want to think about all that investment money going south and come up with some new avenues for that substantial capital to make more of a difference here in Canada. I don't know what that could mean, honestly, but I throw it out there.

The Governor General made a little bit of news this week and seems to have caught the eye of the National Post editorial board now (more on that below). Here was what most of us thought the newsmaking item was, from a report on Monday: "Nothing wrong with coalition governments: GG."

Gov. Gen. David Johnston told QMI Agency he's been busy brushing up on constitutional governments in case he is called upon to navigate a choppy political crisis.

“Any governor general who has that role in a constitutional system like ours, from time to time will be confronted with questions where there is an element of discretion,” he said.

...

“I think that most jurisdictions that have a system of first-past-the-post or proportional representation will from time to have time have coalitions or amalgamation of different parties and that’s the way democracy sorts itself out,” he said.

Calm, reasonable stuff. Neutral references to options that may or may not come into play in 2011. Brief remarks on the way that parliamentary democracies can sort themselves out, not shocking following the British and Australian elections of 2010.

Now additionally, in another QMI interview, he made some comments on his activities as a Governor General and what his priorities would be, such as fostering that smart/caring society that he's discussed since his initial appointment, with his emphasis on higher education, research and innovation, etc. He signalled these priorities clearly in his installation speech on October 1st. It's nothing new.

Our new Governor-General, David Johnston, wants to have influence over public policy. That’s all well and good. But he had better be careful not to exert that influence in too public a manner.

...

But are they too much to hope to achieve in less than five years? And are they too political? There are several public policies that would have to be changed and public spending that would have to be increased or redirected — especially in the fields of education and research — if Mr. Johnston’s ambitions are to be achieved. He must be very careful to avoid treading on the turf of Canadians’ elected representatives.

We trust Mr. Johnston needs only a gentle reminder to be discreet.

Johnston "had better be careful" and "be discreet" and "avoid treading on the turf of Canadians' elected representatives." Oh, come on. Is advocacy for higher education and innovation what's really driving the National Post editorial board to pen such brash warnings to the new Governor General? Are they so very troubled by the prospect of a Governor General advocating for such apple pie? One who has been described, widely, as politically astute? Seems a bit of a stretch.

It's more likely that there's something else going on with this editorial. The elephant in the room, unremarked in the Post editorial, is the above response in that other year end interview to QMI by the Governor General on coalitions and democracy sorting itself out. That answer was a big problemo for the Conservative government's cartoonish and undemocratic anti-coalition stance and for the editorial boards that slavishly support such governments and their stances. This editorial seems like a transparent and immediately timed response in the form of a brushback pitch to the Governor General as a result of those comments. Not hard to read between the lines here and something that bears watching.

RCMP top brass took home more than $1.6 million in extra pay in 2009-2010.

According to documents provided by the RCMP, the Mounties' six deputy commissioners were paid a total of $224,419 in at risk pay and bonuses, which when divided equally, works out to a little over $37,000 each. The force paid its 33 assistant commissioners a total of $358,296 in extra pay last year and its 77 chief superintendents an additional $1,033,101.

These seem to be the criteria for bonus pay, with discretion given to the RCMP Commissioner:

A spokesperson for the RCMP says the Commissioner has authority over the additional payments but bases his decisions on the Treasury Board's performance management program for executives. The Treasury Board defines at risk pay as a percentage of an individual's salary based on the successful achievement of commitments. Bonuses are also a lump sump payment "based on the individual's demonstrated performance that has surpassed expectations."

Now was this a federal organization deserving of pay bonuses in 2010? Theoretically, bonus pay is a reward for good performance. Is this an organization that Canadians would look at and think, hmmm, 2010 and the RCMP...bonus pay should blanket the leadership?

For an influential voice like Pratte's to suggest that Bloc voters - who have been steadfast - reconsider what they're doing, it could be the start of some stirring in Quebec, a new opening for Liberals.

Maddow is doing a bit of a year end review of segments and issues covered this year on her show. Thought this might be relevant to a discussion that's been going on here of late, the Cherry visit to Afghanistan. In the last highlight here, she fires a tank gun in Iraq.

Also, just for fun, before Christmas, Rachel covered the Leafs/waffle throwing incidents. We're big time, baby!

The United Arab Emirates embassy in Ottawa has announced it will be charging Canadians up to $1,000 for visas starting next week – seemingly punitive pricing that exceeds global norms.

...

No citizen of any other Western country needs a visa to enter the UAE, which announced months ago that Canadians would lose their favoured-guest status amid an ongoing bilateral row over aviation rights. The policy is to take effect Jan. 2, though the precise details have never been officially spelled out.

They're still clinging to the line that this is all perfectly normal, a visa decision taken in 2009 that is just being implemented now. A Foreign Affairs spokeswoman offers it up in the piece and apparently the diplomatic corps in Dubai has been enlisted to chime in, playing down the notion that Canada is being treated differently. The reporting says otherwise though in terms of the scale of the fees, the cost implications for Canadian visitors and the simple fact of Canadians now requiring a visa: "Canada was among 30 countries whose citizens did not require a visa to the UAE." Just do the math.

The new rules will affect 25,000 Canadians living in the UAE as well as the 200 Canadian companies operating in the country.

So...is that 25,000 x $1,000? $25 million at the high end? That's a pricey imposition on Canadians. But we're told that all is perfectly normal. This is the way this government operates, facts are to be spun to offset political damage.

"It seems to me a diplomatic dispute that we thought we could brush off became much larger than that," Adam Chapnick, a foreign policy expert and deputy director of education at the Canadian Forces College in Toronto, told CTV.ca. "It's quite possible we underestimated the extent to which the UAE would react to more hardball diplomatic tactics."

Chapnick calls the loss of Camp Mirage, which was the vital logistical airbase into Afghanistan, an "expensive blow." "It's a cost we probably could have avoided," he said.

The loss of the base would become even more expensive after it was announced in November that Canada would be staying in Afghanistan until 2014, adding three more years to the total bill. Estimates put the cost of closing Camp Mirage at $300 million, provided the mission ended at the 2011 deadline. (CTV link)

Hundreds of millions in new, unnecessary costs to the military and now, 2011 brings us millions in new visa charges, alone among western nations. Rack 'em up, Canada! Life under Stephen Harper, Economist™.

Monday, December 27, 2010

If I were in charge of QMI Agency, and therefore newsroom boss of its 36 major dailies and 200-plus community newspapers, I would send out an edict that no picture of convicted killer-rapist Russell Williams will ever again be published in our pages with him wearing a military uniform.

But I have no such clout. Perhaps the power of suggestion will win the day.

It would be the right thing for the largest newspaper chain in Canada to do, and for it to then publicly state why this corporate decision was made.

A tribute done up by a UK site to the UK political bloggers that hung up the keyboards in 2010. Kind of fun. I swear that's the British BigCityLib at about the 30 second mark, a ubiquitous look among we blogging types apparently.

Notice how these British bloggers also appear to be on television quite a bit, enough so as to enable capturing them for posterity's sake from those appearances.

If we had a Canadian version, figuring in there from 2010 would be the Cynic, of course, my friend, HarperBizarro and others. We're just not that organized though. So no Andrea Bocelli serenades for you, my friends!

They also have shiny "building the progressive grassroots online" workshop thingys coming up. Very jealous of the Netroots UK movement. Over here we'd have to carve it up a hundred ways to Sunday, with elbows up in everybody's faces. Yep, that's how we roll. It certainly helps that they've got a rallying, urgent issue in the form of the cuts being made in Britain, with the ominous tuition fee changes lighting a fire under such online developments.

This has been a Canadian-politics-is-very-quiet-post-Christmas-lull-grass-is-greener-over-there moment. Back to Canadiana maybe later today.

A bit of a year end review thing here just for fun. The Blogger stats page indicates that these were the most viewed posts on the blog since May, so I thought I'd share them again. Takes you back to all these swell moments in (mostly) Canadian politics.

1. Things that aren't surprising, July 7th.
I caught an early run of a Sun media report with a quote that later disappeared from the final version. A brouhaha was alleged in the report over the Queen's sleeping arrangements during her summer visit. National Newswatch linked so it got a bunch of views.

2. Put it in D, November 1st.
A simple post with an Obama video. Who knew.

3. Bravo National Post, December 16th.
In which I got a little worked up in criticizing a National Post columnist. That can happen around here from time to time.

4. Peter MacKay debunked, August 4th.
As I have said before, David Pugliese is a national treasure. That was a fun one.

5. A national disgrace, December 8th.
On the rejection of a Senate bill to help the disabled Nortel workers. Self-explanatory title and a continuing disgrace.

Half of Canadians would have no reservations about taking part in a federal election in 2011, a new Angus Reid Public Opinion / Toronto Star poll has found.
In the online survey of a representative national sample of 1,000 Canadian adults, 49 per cent of respondents agree with holding a federal election next year while one third (34%) disagree with the idea.

As always, we shall see how election speculation plays out, but it certainly looks like the "Canadians don't want an election" talking point is going to be less handy going forward.

Posting this video for a bit of fun but also for the concerns raised. Maddow is at the 92nd Street YMCA in New York for a few live shows this week, so it's been nice to see her with the live audience and their reaction. It's also a short but decent discussion with one of the preeminent economists of our time, that would be, of course, Paul Krugman. He believes there's not nearly enough stimulus that's been done in the U.S., as we know if we read his columns, but he makes the point here again. A few choice quotes from Krugman are rude awakenings: "We really have seen all sanity driven from one of our two political parties;" and while he remarks that it's been a few good weeks for Obama, "think about the next few years and it's extremely frightening."

Krugman is talking not only about political worry but economic worry. That is a backdrop that is possibly affecting Flaherty's budget preparations now, but we shall see:

“The economic recovery is moderating and the outlook remains uncertain,” the Washington-based International Monetary Fund said of Canada in an assessment released Thursday. “Looking ahead, risks are elevated and tilted to the downside with high household debt levels the main domestic risk, and a weaker U.S. outlook the largest external risk,” the IMF concluded.

...

“What I’m hearing really sounds a lot to me like cautious restraint,” he said in an interview in his Parliament Hill office. “Nothing Draconian is being asked for. People do want us to move toward a balanced budget, but they do not want us to do that at the expense of jobs and growth and the economy.”

He is now describing the upcoming budget in February or March as a “pragmatic” set of policies that will balance the need for economic stimulus with the need to begin emphasizing government restraint in Ottawa.

There are other year-enders with Flaherty out there too with slightly different emphasis in each of them, yet it all seems to point in one direction, a careful Flaherty with an eye on how pivotal this budget will be as an election catalyst. Likely for that reason, he's playing down the notion that there will be big cuts. That gets big play in the Globe. See other interviews covered in Bloomberg, QMI and the Canadian Press where, notably, Flaherty indicates that they have looked into doing something on home care, but he's really not clear there on whether they might do anything, citing cost. You also see, in the interviews, talk of retraining programs for workers, infrastructure spending continuing, see the Bloomberg report, for example.

Making your way through all of it, it sounds like Flaherty's trying to be as uncontroversial as possible, likely what is intended. Based on what they've done thus far, we could see targeted cuts on the one hand (see this news today for example) combined with more of that skewed spending toward Conservative ridings and electoral prospects on the other hand. You could call it slash and splash. The "cautious restraint" of the uncontroversial budget...we'll believe it when we see it from Flaherty.

A bit of a gaffe extravaganza the past two days going for Larry Smith, Harper's new Senate appointee and now, going for the twofer, Lac-Saint-Louis riding candidate. Yesterday was the big one, of course, boldly going where perhaps no Senate appointee has gone before, trashing the size of the Senate paycheque:

“You have to understand that I’ve worked very hard over my career and to do what I’m doing now I’m making a major, major concession in my lifestyle to even be a senator,” he told the CBC’s Evan Solomon on Power and Politics.

“I’m not trying to be arrogant, because I’m not, but I made a commitment to get myself into a higher form of public service than the philanthropic stuff I’ve done for the last 30 years. . .

“In simple terms, he added, “the money I was earning in my last profession to where I would be in this profession is what I would call a dramatic, catastrophic pay cut. And I have a family — I have obligations.”

Senators are paid an annual salary of $132,300.

A bit of incredible insight into Mr. Smith's worldview. Throw in that he seems to castigate the philanthropic "stuff" he's done as perhaps small potatoes to date as well. Terrible optics for Smith given the hardship we've seen in the news recently.

"I will not be appointed as a cabinet minister [right now]," he told reporters Tuesday evening after speaking to supporters at a meeting of the Lac-Saint-Louis Conservative riding association. "I've had that discussion with the prime minister because in my sense you have to earn your spot at the table."

The irony is also strong with this one. You have to earn your spot at the cabinet table, but he'll just be having his Senate seat in the interim along the way to running for MP, thank you very much. Interesting version of sportsmanship and fair play that they learn in the CFL.

What else is going on here beyond the gaffes? With all the problems facing the nation, the issues of the day, do we need a football player/football executive/football commissioner in the House of Commons or in any other federal position at the moment do we think? Are these the kinds of skills, experiences, competencies that are lacking at the federal level? Harper's picked Nancy Greene, Jacques Demers, he's made a few sports picks. Seems like it was enough already.

Hopefully the voters of Lac-Saint-Louis will be taking note of all this, whenever that election comes, and send Mr. Smith back to his pre-catastrophic lifestyle.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Explanation for that zombie reference below. But first...what did we see on Monday at that First Minister's meeting? An agreement to pursue the private pension plan and just a sliver of hope for CPP reform. Private prevailed over the public. Any enhancement of CPP has been put off to a future June meeting:

“We agreed that our officials should continue their work on the CPP,” said Finance Minister Jim Flaherty after the talks in Kananaskis, Alta. “We will come back at our June meeting to discuss options and concerns.”

The criticism of the pooled system was that it was voluntary, and therefore unlikely to make much more of a difference to retirement savings than existing savings programs such as RRSPs.

But Mr. Flaherty argued that by forcing employers to offer the new PRPP – without forcing them to contribute – and by forcing employers to automatically enroll workers into the system with an opt-out provision, millions more Canadians will start putting away extra cash for retirement.

But employees, who under CPP must match employer contributions to the plan, would be under no obligation to contribute to PRPP.

"It would be mandatory for employees to participate in the plan unless they specifically opted out," said Flaherty.

It sounds like Flaherty is making it up as he goes. In that "Draft Framework for Pooled Registered Pension Plans" there was no mention of forcing employers to offer a plan. It said employers would be given a choice of whether to offer a plan to their employees (p. 5-6). Otherwise, employees would be on their own to sign up for one at the bank or insurance company or wherever these things would be purchased. Suddenly it's morphed into a requirement for employers. Sounds like it's just Quebec and Flaherty as early supporters of that development, so it may not ultimately fly.

How exactly a mandatory offering with an opt-out would boost enrollment is another question. They must be counting on people not opting out. There are shades of negative billing tactics there though, could be some fallout. And who would a presumptive mandatory employee enrollment benefit? A big winner would likely be the financial industry offering the plans.

This needs to be looked at long and hard, by those First Ministers of Finance of the nation and the federal opposition parties. With a view to how it might affect CPP in particular. Is this a burgeoning competitor that's being set up?

Here's some interesting early online reaction to the Harper government's direction to throw into the mix. In response to the question, "Would you support a shift to privately managed pensions," 17% (1122 votes) said "Yes. I trust the private sector to earn greater returns, even if it comes with greater risk." Yet 83% (5572 votes) said "No. I support an enhanced federally run Canada Pension Plan."

Those 83% supporting CPP there, in opposition to Flaherty's preferred route, bring to mind what Paul Krugman was talking about yesterday in his column, "When Zombies Win":

When historians look back at 2008-10, what will puzzle them most, I believe, is the strange triumph of failed ideas. Free-market fundamentalists have been wrong about everything — yet they now dominate the political scene more thoroughly than ever.

...

But such failures don’t seem to matter. To borrow the title of a recent book by the Australian economist John Quiggin on doctrines that the crisis should have killed but didn’t, we’re still — perhaps more than ever — ruled by “zombie economics.” Why?

Speaking in Charlottetown, P.E.I., where he’s meeting with his provincial counterparts, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said the “substantive majority view” among his provincial colleagues was that the hikes were needed.

“We agreed to consider a modest, phased-in and fully funded enhancement to defined benefits under the CPP in order to increase coverage and adequacy,” said Flaherty. “We were not unanimous, but the substantive majority view was that we should proceed.”

A "substantive majority" was good enough then to go ahead with CPP reform. Those were pretty strong statements from Flaherty. Also:

"The letter, if it is a letter, from the six provinces just confirms what I said Thursday, that there is no consensus on the issue," Flaherty told reporters.

What a turnaround and abdication of leadership at the same time.

In terms of the substance, in the summer, the private version of pension reform was raised and made part of a three-pronged approach to pension reform that everyone was getting on board with (i.e., a private plan initiative, financial literacy plus enhanced CPP). Now, however, Flaherty's upset the balance and is essentially walking away from the CPP enhancement, focusing on the private plan option. All of the talk from the summer, about working well with the Finance Ministers, the sincere desire to work together, all gone. So that's where we are, with a credibility-challenged Finance Minister going into these meetings skewing all discussion towards a private option.

“This is not the year to add on to the burden of employees,” Quebec Finance Minister Raymond Bachand told The Globe and Mail in Calgary on Sunday, pointing to the continuing fragility of the Canadian economy. “These are the kinds of changes that you do once in a generation.”

Boy, there are all kinds of things we're prohibited from doing these days due to the great spectre of economic uncertainty. The Harper government likes to tell us most days that Canada is doing well, a model of stability in a sea of uncertainty. Yet when it comes to pension reform, or, say, elections, the no-fly zones suddenly appear. Exactly when the magic moment will be in coming years when the sea of financial calm sets upon us is anyone's guess. The baby boomer retiree generation isn't getting any smaller in the meantime.

Besides, doesn't the argument from the Quebec Finance Minister and Flaherty et al. cut both ways? These past few years of uncertainty are exactly why you consider big changes. Because we've seen that things that are too big to fail can in fact fail. In Canada, somehow we think we are exempt from that proposition and can put off big decisions to future happier times.

Why the big turnaround from Flaherty and Harper? The prospect of CPP premiums going up is a likely hitch for the Harper government with an eye on an election. Second, the choice to shift dollars into private institutions rather than expand the CPP is a natural ideological choice for these conservative striped governments.

Yet there will be questions. How will these private plans solve the problem with Canadians not saving enough? Voluntary private options are not likely to change that dynamic. Above all, is this the choice Canadians want to make with pension reform? Going the private route versus bolstering the trusted CPP? Could make for some interesting political debates going forward.

The requirements for plain language disclosure (and the choices members are to make upon enrolment) (both p. 4) seem to presume a level of investment sophistication that may be challenging to overcome. Yes, disclosure is necessary and good but some of the items there, including the rights to portable plans as people change jobs and the exercising of different options in that eventuality would require some sophistication. Then there are such routine disclosures as notice of amendments to the plan, for example. It doesn't really sit well following what we've seen with the sub-prime mortgage debacle in the U.S. where people just did not understand what deals they were getting into. Where are they going to get help? The employer? The bank? The insurance company?

The "Responsibilities of Employers" section (p. 5) will raise questions about employer contributions, which appear to be optional and employers' residual administration of these plans, including the very important task of "collecting and remitting contributions to the plan."

The "Individual Members" (p. 6) of these plans, i.e., the self-employed and those who work in companies not offering a plan but who individually opt into one, will have the burden of those administrative tasks an employer would otherwise bear, e.g., deciding on a level of contribution and remitting contributions. The highly disciplined among us would be fine with that. Many others, not so much.

An employer has the ability to move to a new plan at its discretion. Or, it can cease offering one altogether. (p. 7) There seem to be options in the draft for what happens with employees when an employer chooses a new plan. It doesn't seem to say what happens when the employer just ceases offering a plan. (?)

Just a few questions for starters, sure there are lots more to be asked arising out of that document.

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Recall this past Monday, Tony Clement went out to Pratt & Whitney in Mississauga and made a big p.r. show out of a government funding announcement for that company. Job promises were the big feature, with Clement and the government spin making it seem to all watching that thousands of jobs would be the result. The numbers didn't really hold up though, with even Pratt & Whitney not matching the government's job number rhetoric. It turned out that about 200 new jobs might be created as a result of that announcement instead of the thousands the government wanted to portray. That was Monday though.

Aerospace giant Pratt & Whitney will lay off 70 employees in the new year, QMI Agency has learned.

This comes just days after the federal government announced it would inject $300 million for the firm’s $1-billion research and development project.

...

“In this period of economic uncertainty, it is extremely important that our customers remain our priority, that we continue to invest in our future and that we remain competitive by improving our costs structure,” employees were told in an e-mail sent in November by company president John Saabas.

The Montreal-area firm benefited from $1.5 billion from taxpayers between 1993 and 2006.

Not an auspicious start to the job creation that was supposed to result from the major government announcement. What an embarrassment to see that within a week.

Thought things were supposed to be quieting down now that the session has ended...here are a bunch of items worth noting today.

Pensions:Flaherty has flip-flopped again! Signalling, contrary to his summer position, that in terms of pension reform, CPP enhancements are off the table and instead the Harper government will pursue private Pooled Registered Pension Plans (PRPPs). Could be a trial balloon, positioning going into that finance ministers next week. Whatever it is, there's an obvious question. Why no help for the Nortel disabled workers as the pension issue is discussed? Is that not an elephant in the room here? Also, the thought of CPP premium increases may be driving this development, reflexively for Harper. Not possible as an election becomes discussed so increasingly (which might make this an indicator). At this point they do seem to be throwing in with a riskier private option rather than the established, reliable CPP. Makes for one more of those striking political contrasts.

Harper to the UN? The UN announces the formation of a Commission on Information and Accountability for Women’s and Children’s Health. Stephen Harper is named as co-chair of the commission. Yes, Stephen Harper. This appointment no doubt stems from the G8 Muskoka initiative which Canada led, on maternal and children's health funding. While this looks on its face to be an ironic appointment given the ideological bent the Harper government has taken in excluding abortion as part of Canada's funding of this initiative, the "accountability framework" looks like something Harper as co-chair can't bring his ideology to bear on. Every country has its own contributions they are making, with their own funding choices having been made at the country level, on such matters as reproductive health funding. This commission looks like it's all about the after-monitoring of decisions already made and it has a short reporting time frame for establishing that "accountability framework." It also looks like there are a raft of commissioners on that body from around the world in addition to the vice-chairs who will likely have more to do with the work done than the co-chairs, if it works the way most bodies do. Still, for many Canadians, there is an irony here of Harper being appointed to any body with the words "Information and Accountability" as its mandate, let alone one having to do with women.

Fear the iPod Tax extravaganza: It's been a while, the Conservatives were due. This aggressive iPod tax radio ad nonsense is blatantly false and has a ring of desperation in it. You read about the letter to the First Nations then you see this, we're back to the heavy-handed partisan slamming Harper typifies. Why the ads? This quote from Craig Oliver on year-end partisan jostling was striking: "He is stronger. The Liberals are in the game in a very serious way when this campaign comes and I believe it will before the snow melts," Oliver said."

F-35s: How can we do a round-up without an F-35 entry. Here's a good one: "F-35 Target Prices Revealed." The latest low rate initial production models are targeted to be $111 million, without the engine cost, presently pegged at about $19 million, leading to about $130 million per plane (for the version we're proposing to buy).

Conservative MP Kelly Block's appearance at a Commons committee yesterday. It was the usual frustrating effort at accountability with one hour divided up among four parties asking questions. Alison has been blogging this thoroughly this week and is a must read. Can you imagine being escorted to a committee by John Baird as some kind of protector? Bizarre and patronizing all at once. One of the most intriguing aspects of this story:

No questions answered by Block on that matter though. What was all the printing business Mulcair witnessed? Some off the grid printed partisan activity?

AECL:The bid process is melting down with SNC-Lavalin apparently getting cold feet, denying it though. So, we're left with Bruce Power still in the mix and an unsolicited bid from entrepreneur Day? The government assures us: "The process is being conducted in such a manner as to protect the economic interests of the government of Canada and potential investors," a department official said Thursday in an email."

From Tuktoyaktuk to Iqaluit, Resolute Bay to Churchill, Arctic Community Packs were delivered to nineteen Northern communities this summer and fall. A total of 55 steel sealift-sized containers, assembled by Coast Guard personnel in Prescott Ontario, are each packed with specific pollution control equipment tailored to the needs of each community. The new kits will complement the existing stockpile of pollution countermeasures equipment in the Arctic. Each of the new Arctic Community Packs contains surface booms and accessories, shoreline cleanup kits, small vessels and outboard motors and trailers, and in select communities, beach flushing kits.

Thursday, December 16, 2010

The edited version which appeared approximately 20 minutes after the previous version.

Nothing like a political columnist pushing boundaries with creative analogies, hey? Mr. Ivison is known as a Liberal critic, that's obvious to anyone who reads his stuff. But, in my view, there is a callousness at play here, almost an intent to demean which is worth noting. Not everything goes in Canadian politics these days, at least it shouldn't. Seems the National Post editors may have recognized this and good for them if they did. The second time, anyway.

Will leave it to others to form their own views, based on the editing that's occurred.

(You can watch the video here, removed since it keeps loading without a start/stop button.)

Singing leaders at Christmas time, it's all the rage this year. Ignatieff gives it an all too brief whirl, thankfully. You don't even have time to get uncomfortable. That's the beauty of this performance. Again, as with the dancing, this bodes well for future campaign-like efforts. Whenever those may be.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

In his first foray before the microphones after being sworn in as the new federal MP for Vaughn, former OPP chief Julian Fantino said as little as possible, other than to boost the government’s Conservative law-and-order agenda.

Flanked by Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, a former Manitoba crown attorney, Fantino was asked about Opposition demands that all costs associated with the G20 summit in Toronto be made public.

Fantino dismissed the Opposition’s criticisms as “just a red herring.”

“All of those issues were addressed, they’re addressed, it’s totally transparent and there’s no way in any way, shape or form that those criticisms were valid.”

Toews interjected as reporters tried to ask Fantino a follow-up. “Look, we’ve indicated very clearly that those numbers are going to be available to the press.”

“The by-election is over. Mr. Fantino is here. The numbers are coming,” said Toews. “Relax.”

Pressed further, Toews would only respond the tallies would be made public “soon.”

...

His much-touted arrival on Parliament Hill was brief. Fantino turned and was whisked away from further questions by the minister and at least two aides.

Yes, the content edicts have been issued and he now has a travel buddy at the mikes! That has got to chafe.

The read of the day given the end of session and that Governor General's bill signing ceremony taking place later today, Helene Buzzetti of Le Devoir breaks down the impact of last year's prorogation on this year's legislative accomplishments. The analysis refers to 2010 as essentially a "lost year" in terms of having to re-do a lot of the work that had been done legislatively in 2009, particularly on the Conservatives' much vaunted crime agenda. They keep hurling accusations at others for holding up that set of laws in particular, yet when you look at the numbers, those accusations seem laughable.

The government introduced 61 bills this year, 33 of which had to be re-introduced since they were lost due to prorogation. Of those 33, only 3 have received Royal Assent. Of the 28 new bills, 5 have received Royal Assent.

There's a bit of a cataloguing done in the report, bill by bill, to show how much delay the Conservatives added into the mix themselves, beyond prorogation. 8 months delay, for example, on re-introducing those bills on enhanced police powers over internet eavesdropping, which has meant little accomplished on those. There are 11 measures, Buzzetti notes, which Conservatives claim as being key pieces of their law and order agenda but which have just made it back to their pre-prorogation stage now. Included among these would be C-16 on ending house arrest for violent criminals, and C-39 limiting the early release of offenders. It's actually bordering on high farce that they're able to get away with all this made-for-TV tough on crime pandering.

All to be kept in mind as a few bills are granted Royal Assent today. The numbers and analysis are excellent reminders but we have a strong sense about all this in any event. Harper is into executive power, not legislative power. And advertising much more than legislating.

Day (and unknown investors) wants to buy the part of AECL that builds new reactors because, being an entrepreneur, he sees potential in other markets for the Candu business to grow. China and India are named as the most likely markets. The other reported bidders for AECL to date, leaked out in a Globe report on November 10th, just 5 days before Day's initial interest became public, are Bruce Power and SNC-Lavalin. Both are reportedly only interested in the reactor maintenance business, i.e., the servicing of existing Candu reactors, of which there are 32, with 20 in Canada. The union is asking how this could work, the separating out of different parts of AECL, namely the Candu building part and the maintenance/refurbishing part.

So it's worth asking just what kind of bidding process the government is running here, when latecomers might ride in, after hearing leaks about the extent of the offers that are supposedly on the table and outside the parameters of whatever the initial formal bid rules were. Seems like a shoddy process that isn't going to get best value for these assets, it's looking like more of a fire-sale. Maybe the leaked news of SNC-Lavalin and Bruce Power's limited interest in AECL was in fact designed to spawn additional offers such as Day's. Just speculation but given that it's all being done under wraps, other than these leaks and occasional news reports, that's all we can do.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

A statement released today by the two ministers, out on a shopping date at the Rideau Centre apparently, smacks of protesting too much about this newly branded iPod Tax™, whatever that actually is or has been cooked up to mean by the Conservative brain trust:

Today, the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry, and the Honourable James Moore, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, issued the following statement from the Rideau Centre, a popular holiday shopping destination:

“We are here to confirm that the Harper Government will not bring in an iPod tax as part of its copyright legislation. The iPod Tax has been proposed and supported by all opposition parties.

"The iPod Tax!" Awww, dudes, you went all the way over to the Rideau Centre just for that bit of nonsense? Note that "iPod Tax" is done with a capital "T" for special marketing effect no doubt. It rates a mention 8 times in the release and is dropped squarely into the lap of the opposition.

"I think today, Minister Moore and Clement, they, they crossed the line. They basically lied to Canadians," said Quebec Liberal MP Pablo Rodriquez. "Our position is to keep working with the artists to make sure we find a better solution than the levy, a long-term solution, technologically neutral."
Moore is "obviously sending a message that he doesn't really give much of a damn about getting the copyright legislation through," said NDP MP Charlie Angus. "James Moore knows that the $75 is a fiction. They've been making this up."

A man slipped away from the scene of a week-long armed standoff in Newfoundland and got a lift out of town to buy smokes while police guarded what turned out to be an empty house for nearly 16 more hours, the RCMP said Monday.

The Mounties said the man snuck past their security perimeter on Friday night after they gathered on one side of his house to pump water into it with high-pressure hoses in an effort to resolve the standoff in Bay Bulls, N.L.

“In essence, we had one side of the house fully covered and positioned and another side that wasn’t,” Sgt. Boyd Merrill said in an interview.

Hon. Tony Clement (Minister of Industry, CPC): The hon. member is quite correct, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly what I and the member for Mississauga—Erindale did earlier today. We announced a major investment by the Government of Canada through a repayable contribution but also by the industry itself, a $1 billion R and D investment in the aerospace sector. That translates into 700 jobs for research and development and over 2,000 jobs when it comes to the actual production phase.

We are in favour of research and development, whether it comes to F-35s or whether it comes to the aerospace industry. We are onside with the aerospace sector. When will the Liberals do the same?

700 jobs for R & D, Tony? And "over 2,000 jobs when it comes to the actual production phase?" That sounds like 2,700 new jobs. Hmmm. Lucky us. Reporters actually did the work of following up on the big show: "Pratt & Whitney deal not quite as advertised." That's right, not quite:

The government announcement also claims the deal will "create and maintain an average of more than 700 highly skilled jobs during the project work phase, and more than 2,000 jobs during the 15-year benefits phase."

The company later explained that it hopes to hire about 200 new staff for the research and development project, expected to take about five years.

At $300 million from taxpayers, that works out to $300,000 a year per job.

As for the rest of the jobs, Clement's press secretary, Lynn Meahan, explained that "hypothetically, without the project, the workforce would have shrunk."

She said the promised 2,000 long-term jobs would come from manufacturing the new engines yet to be developed, and it is not clear how many of those positions, if any, would be new.

A company spokeswoman, however, said just 200 new jobs will be created, while the rest will be "maintained." It wasn't immediately clear whether some of the remaining 500 jobs might have otherwise disappeared. Pratt & Whitney laid off employees last year because of weak markets.

So it's not really 700 new R & D jobs, as the government is representing. It's more like 200 new jobs. It's an average of 700 highly skilled jobs that will be "created" and "maintained" over the life of this project in the government's clever-speak that nevertheless gives the distinct impression to all listening that the number they should fixate on is 700. Yet the company is saying 200. In other reporting, CTV, Canadian Press and the Sun, the company is also described as currently hiring 200 engineers.

As for the 2,000 additional jobs, it's sounding like they're not new at all, just a stopgap to ensure that existing jobs don't depart. But that's certainly not the way it was portrayed yesterday by Clement in the House of Commons. Nor in the media.

From 2,700 to 200.

You have to wonder whether, as a condition of the largesse, the government is allowed to say whatever it likes and the company execs go along and politely clap. Meanwhile, those workers sitting there in the hangar have the wool pulled completely over their eyes. As does the public.

So the latest in-and-out elections expenses developments have been in the news the last few days, with the news of national campaign offices having been set up by the Conservatives in Quebec during the 2006 federal campaign but with expenses for those offices having been attributed to the local candidates. That's become part of the dispute with the Conservative Party having been ordered to amend its 2006 return accordingly.

Anyhow, this spawned some back and forth in Question Period yesterday and now some Conservative spin that is pushing back against Liberals who raised it. The spin is the very wrongheaded and irresponsible notion that Elections Canada is biased against the Conservatives and treats Liberals much differently. The oft-cited pass given to Liberals and mentioned in the Lilley piece? That past leadership candidates have been given extensions on repayment of their debt. Extensions are provided for in the Elections Act and further, earlier this year, a Federal Court did grant another extension on the paying back of the leadership debt for many of the candidates.

What is not mentioned in the Lilley piece and by Conservatives, however, is that Conservative candidates have similarly benefited from such extensions and there is indeed even-handed treatment that occurs.

Thank you, Canadian Press. The point is, the Conservative spin that Elections Canada is biased is nonsense. It's even more egregious because throughout the life of this in-and-out court process, going on an incredible four years now, they insist on trying to undermine one of our foundational democratic institutions. If they have a grievance with an interpretation of a law and they're having a court battle, fine. But engage in it professionally and with a sense of respect for the process, their role as the government and Elections Canada's unique position.

The in-and-out expense case rolls on, unfinished since 2006. That's the real issue here, the ultimate answer on Conservative overspending in that 2006 federal election is yet to be provided while the case is under appeal. It may be a lose-lose for Conservatives, however, contrary to what the other Conservative spin is about all the wins racked up thus far.

Here are some of the highlights from the first report that appear to be new (with some thoughts in parentheses after some points):

there is a Defence Department calculation that puts the full cost of the proposed JSF purchase at $21 billion, higher than the $16 billion that's been widely put on it to date (the government has not been up front about this)

after the Harper government signed the most recent version of the JSF Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") in 2006, even they were emphasizing at that point that the MOU did not mean Canada would be purchasing the JSF (there hasn't been much reporting on that and it begs the question of the total turnaround in rhetoric now)

there seem to have been different approaches within DND over how to go about this purchase, with a pro-F-35 set of advocates on the one hand and on the other, air force officers who went about preparing for and expecting a competitive bid purchase to occur (these factions are noted around the spring and summer of 2009, a year before the July 2010 announcement)

Conservative MPs were being lobbied by Boeing on having a competition (in support of the F-18 Super Hornet) with Boeing saying they could provide a cheaper deal with industrial benefits "equal to or exceeding the money the federal government planned to spend" (confirming that the F-35 sole-source proceeded in spite of such information, the government chose to ignore what sounds like an offer that very much deserved consideration)

contrary to the unanimity that the Harper government portrays, industry is divided over how widespread the benefits of the JSF will actually be to Canadian industry

despite the cost overruns that were coming to the fore particularly in early 2010 in the U.S. JSF program, at DND "there were no such concerns" & it was full steam ahead on the F-35 (why no concerns? why no civilian, i.e., Ministerial concern?)

Peter MacKay is viewed at DND as essentially a pushover, asking few questions and not challenging the military's equipment requests (raising questions of lack of oversight, leadership)

the U.S. pressured Canada to buy when other allies were asking questions about the F-35 (which would explain why the proposed deal was announced in the summer, when an actual deal is years away from being signed)

documents show that the purchase was intended to show Washington that Canada was committed to defence (raising questions about our decision-making criteria, putting reassurance of the U.S. ahead of our own priorities)

a DND official flew to the U.S. in early summer 2010 to brief industry representatives and put the maintenance cost of the F-35 at $12 billion whereas MacKay has put it at $5 billion (discrepancy)

the Harper cabinet approved the F-35 purchase in early June of this past summer but held off on a planned June announcement until mid-July due to the heat from the cost of the G8/G20 summits (a planned lead-in to the G8/G20 foiled; also, MacKay had said in the House of Commons on May 27th that there would be a competition, meaning he was either not in the loop or rather quickly corrected on that)

in the 1980s when Canada was choosing our current CF-18s, extensive tests of competitors occurred here in Canada at the Cold Lake base (clearly, none of that is being done with the F-35 proposed sole-sourcing, why we should be settling for less rigour now goes unexplained)

there is a DND criteria dating from 2006 that requires replacement aircraft for the CF-18 to be operational (the F-35 is not operational, it is in test stages and its selection violates this criteria)

In terms of the second part of the series (if this is it), it's a pretty thorough debunking of a number of the government's claims in terms of their sell job on the purchase to date: the notion that there has been a competition, that a prior Liberal government committed us to this purchase and that the Russian menace requires us to buy the F-35. Apparently on that last point, the NORAD stats contradict the Conservative government's claims that 12-18 Russian flights a year are being engaged by Canadian fighters. Turns out, those numbers are too high and Peter MacKay, in an email response, had no answer on the point.

Friday, December 10, 2010

One that has been in my rotation this week, mostly because some commercial has put a bug in my head about it. It's also a great re-mix, regardless, of one of the best songs on the Massive Attack album that was a favourite this year. So, kind of an end of year thing with this one.

Bashevkin contrasts the absence of progressive political science voices on the current Canadian scene with the abundance of conservative ones, pointing out the investments that are being made by conservatives in "foundations, think tanks, conferences, media outlets and so on to promote a particular point of view, and to train like-minded folks to sing with impact from the conservative hymnal." That's just one minor but salient offering from the piece.

She also suggests the absence of the progressive political science part of the spectrum in the public realm (or not enough of it, at least) is hurting the Canadian political debate at the moment:

To demonstrate the extent to which progressive political science is absent in contemporary Canada, let’s pursue three brief counterfactual thought experiments that imagine what public debate would look like if this part of the discipline were present, which in turn permits us to understand why it is weak or entirely absent.

First, if the concepts of power, representation, justice, equality, citizenship and human rights figured more prominently in public debate, then we would have at our fingertips an analytically rigorous set of ideas that both reveal and explain the uneven distribution of influence and resources that undermines democracy at this time. Taking transformative action to rebuild our political fabric would follow from each of those starting points. Yet all six themes have lost traction relative to the totemic markers of our time, notably competitiveness, productivity and economic growth.

Second, with the latter three desiderata depriving the former six of oxygen, it is not surprising that we have to enter the realm of fantasy to imagine a second scenario: reforming the “post-crisis” international economic system in ways that would enhance the well-being of citizens. (I place the phrase post-crisis in quotation marks because the strain on global markets, alongside pressures the world credit collapse and its various knock-on effects have imposed on the legitimacy of democratic governments, arguably continues.) As things stand, discussions of how to move forward usually elevate the regulatory preferences of large financial institutions above all else, leaving little room for the fundamental point that liberal states and markets are ideally tools for improving the lives of human beings.

Third, if the House of Commons operated as a representative chamber that communicated voters’ voices to elected MPs, then the leader of our Official Opposition would not have had to travel roughly 40,000 kilometres this summer to discover that Canadians are worried about the fate of democracy. The same earnest, concerned people who came out to meet Michael Ignatieff from coast to coast to coast would have channelled their views to their local representatives, and then those perspectives would have found their way into party deliberations and parliamentary debates involving all sides of the House.

There is much more to digest from the piece that deserves a full read which I am not doing justice here. She really is saying that there is much that is missing on the progressive side of the spectrum in terms of resources and in terms of meeting conservatives in the present day debate which is skewed to the right.

That skewed debate gives us a climate in which the Nortel disabled workers get the shaft with little public outcry. That skewed debate gives us a climate in which the false choice between the economy and the environment is offered to us and the economy prevails. (My examples, not hers.)

In other words, her piece is not just about the responsibility of political scientists to contribute, it's also about a larger political climate in Canada with multiple ailments, particularly on the progressive side of the spectrum. Arguably, there are bigger undercurrents at play that dwarf who is the leader of any of our political parties at the moment.